"Today's decision to reject a well-crafted correction to the 'three-strikes' law demonstrates the Senate Criminal Procedure Committee's contempt for many Californians who live in fear of crime in their own homes," the governor said in a prepared statement.

Elementary school in Oakland opens time capsule from 1927San Francisco Chronicle

Brides of March walk through San FranciscoSan Francisco Chronicle

WildCare rescues Western scrub jay from rodent glue trapWildCare

The Regulars: The CarpenterJessica Christian

But Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer, D- Hayward, the major opponent of "three-strikes," said: "We can and will continue to hammer violent criminals, but without wasting the taxpayers' money on inordinately long sentences for minor offenses."

Adopted by the Legislature and California voters in 1994, the sentencing law requires 25-year-to-life

sentences for three-time felons. In late June, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that by allowing only prosecutors to disregard prior convictions in "three-strikes" cases, the law violated the separation of powers between branches of government required by the constitution.

Supporters of the ruling, who contend the law has led to unfair sentences for relatively petty crimes, said the court's decision reaffirmed the discretionary powers of judges. Detractors said it undermined what had been a tough anti-crime measure.

The bill defeated yesterday, authored by Senate Republican leader Rob Hurtt of Garden Grove, would have allowed judges to ignore a defendant's prior convictions on their own or at the request of prosecutors -- but only on three conditions: if the defendant's earlier convictions did not involve violent felonies, if the current offense did not involve a violent or serious felony, and if the past felonies occurred at least five years earlier.

Despite testimony from a legion of "three-strikes" supporters, the majority of the committee said they agree with the decision by the state's high court -- whose own majority was appointed by Republican governors.

"I don't see a need to improve on that," said Senator Quentin Kopp, independent-San Francisco.

It was a setback for Wilson, Attorney General Dan Lungren and Hurtt, who had called for a special committee hearing even though most lawmakers had started their three-week break on Friday.

Immediately after the vote, Lockyer proposed alternative "three-strikes" legislation for lawmakers to debate when they return to the Capitol from summer recess August 5. Lockyer said the bill he and Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, D-Sacramento, are proposing would keep "three-strikes" penalties for violent crimes, but remove petty theft and writing bad checks as potential strikes.

Judges and prosecutors would be allowed to dismiss prior felony strikes unless the pending offense is violent or a prior conviction was for child molestation.

During the committee hearing yesterday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge J. Steven Czuleger, who took no position on the law, noted that he and his colleagues have seen a larger number of hung juries and acquittals because jurors are more reluctant to convict in "three-strikes" cases.

3 STRIKES Senate Republican leader Rob Hurtt said his "three-strikes" measure would not strip all discretion from judges, but rather would require that they impose full "three-strikes" sentences in three areas:

-- If the felon facing a "three- strikes" sentence previously was convicted of a violent crime.

-- If the current crime was a serious or violent felony.

-- If the felon was released from prison within five years of committing his latest felony.